zero wrote:In any case, this child was crossing the side street properly - ie by NSW law, the driver was required to give way to the child, and the car was probably stopped when the child set out on their crossing, and the child was in the area that motorists should expect pedestrians to be (between the pram ramps).

Where does it say in the road rules that a driver must give way to a pedestrian crossing a street in front of them, not at a marked crossing? (aside from the usual duty of care to avoid a crash)

Is it not unreasonable that the driver saw the pedestrian at the kerb ramp and assumed they would comply with the road rules and give way to the vehicle?

Note the photo I posted upthread shows the vehicle is coming out of a street, with the pedestrian presumably crossing in front of them given the position of the pram. It's the only information we can go on. This is not the same as when a vehicle turns left or right into a street and must give way to pedestrians crossing the street they are turning into.

I think you misread my post, citywomble. I was stating that it looked like the vehicle was driving up the street to the intersection and the pedestrian crossed in front of them. Before turning, not after turning. In this case, the pedestrian is required to give way.

and later to zero

Where does it say in the road rules that a driver must give way to a pedestrian crossing a street in front of them, not at a marked crossing? (aside from the usual duty of care to avoid a crash) Is it not unreasonable that the driver saw the pedestrian at the kerb ramp and assumed they would comply with the road rules and give way to the vehicle?

Again he is still SO wrong. The simple answer to

Where does it say in the road rules that a driver must give way to a pedestrian crossing a street in front of them

is:In WA it is Reg 56 of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (see link) and, as this derives from the standardised uniform road rules, there WILL be a similar variation in all other states. This is also fairly universal in the rest of the world.

Its a great pity that the various state and territory governments do not do much better at educating Wellington, and millions of others, on where vulnerable users, pedestrians AND cyclists need to be respected, given space and, in this case, have right of way (ie: you must give way to).Its no wonder why drivers turn without looking for pedestrians (as in this tragedy) and cyclists blast in and out of terminating roads at intersections without giving way to pedestrians (that are both crossing the terminating road and those that are crossing the continuing road that is being joined - you should see Perth CBD at peak times.

I think you misread my post, citywomble. I was stating that it looked like the vehicle was driving up the street to the intersection and the pedestrian crossed in front of them. Before turning, not after turning. In this case, the pedestrian is required to give way.

and later to zero

Where does it say in the road rules that a driver must give way to a pedestrian crossing a street in front of them, not at a marked crossing? (aside from the usual duty of care to avoid a crash) Is it not unreasonable that the driver saw the pedestrian at the kerb ramp and assumed they would comply with the road rules and give way to the vehicle?

Again he is still SO wrong. The simple answer to

Where does it say in the road rules that a driver must give way to a pedestrian crossing a street in front of them

is:In WA it is Reg 56 of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (see link) and, as this derives from the standardised uniform road rules, there WILL be a similar variation in all other states. This is also fairly universal in the rest of the world.

Its a great pity that the various state and territory governments do not do much better at educating Wellington, and millions of others, on where vulnerable users, pedestrians AND cyclists need to be respected, given space and, in this case, have right of way (ie: you must give way to).Its no wonder why drivers turn without looking for pedestrians (as in this tragedy) and cyclists blast in and out of terminating roads at intersections without giving way to pedestrians (that are both crossing the terminating road and those that are crossing the continuing road that is being joined - you should see Perth CBD at peak times.

Yaaaagh!! We have had this conversation earlier. You and wellington street are at sixes and sevens, but mainly you've got the rule all mixed up. This rule that you quote, applies to drivers and cyclists when turning into a street. They must give way to pedestrians crossing the street they are entering. The collision, as WS is suggesting, appears to have involved a pedestrian crossing the road in front of the car, before they had turned, ie. they were crossing the street the car was already travelling along.... the rule you quote does not apply.

You do not have to give way to pedestrians crossing the road you are travelling along (unless you are at a zebra crossing or controlled crossing)..... only when you turn into another street do you give way to those crossing the street you enter. Think of it as being like giving way when changing/crossing another lane.

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.

zero wrote:Over the period 4 years before, till 4 years after the introduction of school zones, total pedestrian fatalities dropped by 29% in NSW (general background reduction), and total school children fatalities by 41%, ie its widely accepted that they are a successful measure.

In any case, this child was crossing the side street properly - ie by NSW law, the driver was required to give way to the child, and the car was probably stopped when the child set out on their crossing, and the child was in the area that motorists should expect pedestrians to be (between the pram ramps).

Maybe those figures are because parents are driving their kids to school instead of letting them walk. Education is the only thing that works.

zero wrote:In any case, this child was crossing the side street properly - ie by NSW law, the driver was required to give way to the child, and the car was probably stopped when the child set out on their crossing, and the child was in the area that motorists should expect pedestrians to be (between the pram ramps).

Where does it say in the road rules that a driver must give way to a pedestrian crossing a street in front of them, not at a marked crossing? (aside from the usual duty of care to avoid a crash)

Is it not unreasonable that the driver saw the pedestrian at the kerb ramp and assumed they would comply with the road rules and give way to the vehicle?

Note the photo I posted upthread shows the vehicle is coming out of a street, with the pedestrian presumably crossing in front of them given the position of the pram. It's the only information we can go on. This is not the same as when a vehicle turns left or right into a street and must give way to pedestrians crossing the street they are turning into.

I rode past the site yesterday.

I would expect the driver was looking right and *maybe* trying to beat the on-coming traffic travelling along Kingsgrove Rd northbound. They would then have not seen the child crossing from the driver's left (as they were looking right).

This is all speculation though from what I saw of the marks on the road and actually being at the accident locationa nd knowing the traffic patterns there...

^ My thoughts exactly (and I am too familiar with the intersection). I can't think that the speed in this scenario was anymore than walking pace, so it was probably either the impact to the head of the bonnet or the impact of the head hitting the ground that killed the boy. There's no way you can come out of that street at anything more than about 25km/h and be able to see whether traffic is coming or not.

If I'm crossing in front of a vehicle coming up a side street I always check to see where the driver is looking and dont just assume they are going to see me. I'm not a 5 year old boy, though, although the mother was there with him judging by the pram so should have had some control over the situation.

if the scenario is indeed how we assume then it is as much an unfortunate accident as anything - I don't think it's unreasonable for the driver to have acted accordingly after assuming the pedestrians would comply with the road rules; likewise I don't think a parent can have full control of their child at all times. All it takes a split second for a kid to do something stupid.

Below is Bond University's response to me bringing their attention to Daniel Meers piece. Note they state they strive to ensure GCB reporting is fair and balanced....but then follow with waffle that I presume means they don't feel a need to "strive" wrt Daniel Meers article.

"Thank you for your email.

Bond University strives consistently to foster a good relationship with the Gold Coast Bulletin, its editor and journalists to ensure the reporting is fair and balanced.

A number of Bond University journalism graduates have conducted their cadetship through the Gold Coast Bulletin quite successfully, and as you note many continue to be in the New Limited Group.

Our journalism program teaches journalism ethics and integrity. However, ultimately, the views and opinions expressed by our graduates are those of the individual in their capacity as a journalist. The views are independent of the University.

I thank you for expressing your concerns and trust that this explanation is satisfactory.

If the Audi was approaching the intersection and the family crossed in front I still think the driver should have been looking in the direction they were driving in.There is a point where you are looking to see if you can make the turn but bottom line if there are a mum and 3 kids in the mix why rush the intersection. Why not stop and confirm they are going to give way and either wait for a break in traffic whilst family crosses or go if no traffic.It really sounds like the gen pop puts their need to get everywhere fast well above anyones safety.

Even if the Audi is 100% in the right Australia is blowing too much $ on so called accidents. Investigations, broken family, more signs for roads and list goes on. All of which could be negated if people were more considerate when they operate heavy machinery.

Media like the Daily Telegraph run idiotic crap and their new tagline We are for Sydney when they add nothing of value fails everytime to point out key issues in such accidents even after they are investigated. Then this muppet on the Gold Coast wants drivers to man up, he is clearly not happy we are not on track for a record road toll.

And the only journo in Sydney that writes anything related to cycling, Michael O'Rielly, simply craps on about helmets. That about as useful as Mr Meers. You'd think our papers could do better but it simply ain't what sells.

i'm brand new to cycling after picking up a set of wheels a couple of weeks ago. i've been driving for around 12 years, and have always agreed with the premise of free bicycle registration.

i don't support charging people for it, because we should be encouraging people to cycle - especially where I live in Canberra where our network of bike paths (on road and through parks and nature reserves) is very good.

but i support the notion of cyclists being identifiable - i've always thought this, and it was supported when my friend (a pedestrian) was involved in a hit and run with cyclist on a footpath and broke her wrist.

supera wrote:but i support the notion of cyclists being identifiable - i've always thought this, and it was supported when my friend (a pedestrian) was involved in a hit and run with cyclist on a footpath and broke her wrist.

There's a few reasons I can think of.

1. It might be "free" as in there is no charge, but it will cost taxpayers a lot of money (I'm thinking of 10's or 100's of millions) per year2. It will take considerable police resources to enforce3. Where will you put a license place on a bike that is big enough, that leaves enough room for saddle bags, lights etc? Will there be just one like on motorbikes or two? Is it going to have to be illuminated like a car one at night? (Taxpayer is paying this under your scheme)4. A lot of times in an incident people won't have time/initiative or be too shocked to get the license plate number anyway

The main problem is that the overall cost is very large to solve what is a fairly small problem. Yes there are occasional incidents like the one you experienced, and each individual occurance is sad in its own right, but the government can't fix every problem as they only have so much money, so they have to carefully target their expenditure to things that are worth it. There are bigger unsolved issues around than the occasional idiot cyclist who can't be identified if a description of clothes, bike etc aren't good enough.

the other point i forgot to add is that, as a brand new rider, I don't ride with a destination. I just jump on and ride. i might take a couple of bucks with me for a drink on the way, but I don't take my wallet. given the escapism factor, I never take my phone.

from my perspective, i also like the idea of a free cyclist registration to identify me if they need to scrape me off a road at some point.

supera wrote:but i support the notion of cyclists being identifiable - i've always thought this, and it was supported when my friend (a pedestrian) was involved in a hit and run with cyclist on a footpath and broke her wrist.

There's a few reasons I can think of.

1. It might be "free" as in there is no charge, but it will cost taxpayers a lot of money (I'm thinking of 10's or 100's of millions) per year2. It will take considerable police resources to enforce3. Where will you put a license place on a bike that is big enough, that leaves enough room for saddle bags, lights etc? Will there be just one like on motorbikes or two? Is it going to have to be illuminated like a car one at night? (Taxpayer is paying this under your scheme)4. A lot of times in an incident people won't have time/initiative or be too shocked to get the license plate number anyway

The main problem is that the overall cost is very large to solve what is a fairly small problem. Yes there are occasional incidents like the one you experienced, and each individual occurance is sad in its own right, but the government can't fix every problem as they only have so much money, so they have to carefully target their expenditure to things that are worth it. There are bigger unsolved issues around than the occasional idiot cyclist who can't be identified if a description of clothes, bike etc aren't good enough.

i promise, i'm not trying to start an argument! i just don't think any of those reasons are valid.

1. we already have a registration system for cars - why would it cost drastically more to implement for cyclists?2. no it won't, for the same reason as above. police already have their little machines where they can put in your car number plate and check registration.3. ok, this is a valid point, because I can't think of where on a bike it would go that makes any sense. it could go on the front of most bikes quite easily - but it makes more sense to put it on the back, which is much harder (impossible on some bikes) to do if you're carrying a saddle bag.4. this is the same with cars - we still encourage people to look at number plates.

this makes no sense to me that so many cyclists are opposed to being identified even if it doesn't cost anything. don't you think it gives other road users grounds to be suspicious if 'we' as a community oppose any sort of identification?

we can still hurt people, we can still cause accidents. yes, we cause infinitely less than pretty much any other road user, but it happens.

is it not hypocritical that all of us (including me) get really upset at the actions of some drivers when we're completely unaccountable for our actions?

supera wrote:1. we already have a registration system for cars - why would it cost drastically more to implement for cyclists?

I'm not saying it will cost more per bike than it would per car. But it would be a similar cost. A big chunk of the cost of car rego is to keep the registration system going. So multiply however many bikes there are - 5-10 million (guessing) by $100 or whatever it costs per vehicle ... and that is a lot of money.

2. no it won't, for the same reason as above. police already have their little machines where they can put in your car number plate and check registration.

Yes they would be able to do that, but its not what I'm saying. The police will have to spend valuable time checking bikes going past when they could be doing something more productive like patrolling or booking cars and cyclists running red lights. What about the bikes without rego (i can see there being quite a few of those at least to start with). Its just another job for the police, which has a cost associated.

we are nowhere near as accountable as other road users, but we expect (and deserve) the same prividges. (granted, we don't get them, but we expect them and deserve them)

i would still support registration even if it was for the sole purpose of getting abusive drivers off our back. as someone who has been riding for 2 weeks, but driving for 12 years, it's ridiculous that on my bike I can run a red light and not be identified, but in my car i can do it and be fined $130.

of course drivers hate us when we do that kind of thing, and they have no recourse!

at this point of my riding, my destinations are motivated in large part by fear. i'm too frightened to go on some of Canberra's busiest roads, because Canberra drivers, who are terrible, aggressive drivers at the best of times, hate us (google some recent Canberra times articles on cycling).

it makes us ALL look better if we can identify the bad eggs.

as a bike rider, I pretty much can do whatever I want, because no one can identify me - my only accountability is really the ultimate one, if i screw up or if someone takes offence to whatever I've done.

Genuine question that I'd love to know as a new rider - has anyone ever been (or do you know of anyone) charged with a traffic offence riding a bike?

supera wrote:but i support the notion of cyclists being identifiable - i've always thought this,

How?

Just how identifiable is a cyclist going to be with a rego plate like this??

supera wrote:i would still support registration even if it was for the sole purpose of getting abusive drivers off our back.

It won't That is a road culture aspect of the current bunch of drivers in Australia - they are frustrated with the traffic and want some-one to hate and blame. Other parts of the world have different culture, and they don't have bike registration.

supera wrote:we are nowhere near as accountable as other road users, but we expect (and deserve) the same prividges. (granted, we don't get them, but we expect them and deserve them)

Registration and accountability has nothing to do with buying access to the use of roads.

supera wrote:i would still support registration even if it was for the sole purpose of getting abusive drivers off our back.

A purpose that it would not achieve.

supera wrote:as someone who has been riding for 2 weeks, but driving for 12 years, it's ridiculous that on my bike I can run a red light and not be identified, but in my car i can do it and be fined $130.

I'll let you in on another secret. Pedestrians crossing against the red man can't be identified either!

supera wrote:of course drivers hate us when we do that kind of thing, and they have no recourse!

Recourse for what? Going against a red light? Road users don't have "recourse" on this anyway!

at this point of my riding, my destinations are motivated in large part by fear. i'm too frightened to go on some of Canberra's busiest roads, because Canberra drivers, who are terrible, aggressive drivers at the best of times, hate us (google some recent Canberra times articles on cycling).

supera wrote:it makes us ALL look better if we can identify the bad eggs.

How? Who are these bad eggs? How reducing the number of cyclists going through empty intersection with red light affect cyclist being killed due to motorist inattention and lack of care?

supera wrote:as a bike rider, I pretty much can do whatever I want, because no one can identify me - my only accountability is really the ultimate one, if i screw up or if someone takes offence to whatever I've done.

Is that so terrible?

supera wrote:Genuine question that I'd love to know as a new rider - has anyone ever been (or do you know of anyone) charged with a traffic offence riding a bike?

Why do you have a desire to see cyclists charge with traffic offences? Do you somehow think this is going to make things safer?

human909 wrote:1. Registration and accountability has nothing to do with buying access to the use of roads.

2. I'll let you in on another secret. Pedestrians crossing against the red man can't be identified either!

3. Recourse for what? Going against a red light? Road users don't have "recourse" on this anyway!

4. How? Who are these bad eggs? How reducing the number of cyclists going through empty intersection with red light affect cyclist being killed due to motorist inattention and lack of care?

5. Why do you have a desire to see cyclists charge with traffic offences? Do you somehow think this is going to make things safer?

perhaps because I'm new to cycling i'm not so entrenched in this "all cyclists are completely pure and obey road rules" mindset - I know that they don't.

1. you'll note that I said nothing about "buying" access to the road. so it's a poor start to a post when you didn't comprehend the central point of my proposal.

2. who are pedestrians hurting when they cross the road on a red light? they're the bottom of the road user food chain. we might be smaller than a car, but we can still hurt a pedestrian if we run into them. what you're essentially saying is that, while we moan about inconsiderate drivers, and expect them to be hit with the full force of the law if they interfere with us in our space - a cyclist who does the same thing to a pedestrian shouldn't be identified, fined, or punished. do you not see how hypocritical that makes you?

3. recourse for breaking road rules! if a driver goes through a red light they'll eventually get caught by a camera. for other things they're identifiable (which is the whole point of the suggestion) by number plate. if i'm riding on a pedestrian footpath when there's a bike lane on the other side of the nature strip and i hit someone before riding off, why shouldn't a witness be able to identify me? unfortunately for my victim, "giant guy on a Giant bike" describes about 5000 riders in Canberra.

4. you're focussing on one example of rule breaking behaviour. do you really believe that there aren't cyclists out there who give the rest of us a bad name? of course they do! i'll give you one this morning - main road in canberra, bike lane on the side of the road that the bus has to pull into. the rule, as it was explained to me by the guy at the bike shop a couple of weeks ago, is to wait behind the bus. instead, many riders, including one this morning, will swing out from behind the bus onto the road, without looking, causing cars to have to swerve around them into another lane without having time to check if there's anything in that lane. i see this nearly every day.

can't you understand that this makes the rest of us look bad?

5. if a driver breaks the law, I expect them to be fined. it should be no different for other road users. but in any case, i didn't say anything about wanting to see people fined - once again, if you'd bothered to read my post, I want cyclists to be identifiable - for safety reasons as much as anything else.

and i fully expect that if drivers can see a rego plate with possible recourse to report law-breaking behaviour, perhaps instead of screaming abuse or practicing road rage, they'll stop to consider how serious it was, whether they should be getting plate details. perhaps it will educate some of the pinheads who think we're doing the wrong thing by riding two-abreast when they ring the police and are told "that's perfectly legal." (to the person posting pictures - as I said, I don't have all the answers. i don't know how you would put it on on the back of a bike)

anyway, perhaps i will put my head down and back out of this forum altogether. i'm clearly only ever going to be a bike rider. from what I've experienced so far on the roads and on this forum, i don't ever want to be a "cyclist" - too many of them are hypocritical, arrogant douchebags.

my first weekend riding after getting my bike, i was riding along, minding my own business, and having a friggen ball. was absolutely loving it. i must've looked ridiculous riding along with this stupid big grin on my face. (and my friends would tell you that I'm a particularly bubbly personality) what i didn't look like was a cyclist - i was wearing cheap lightweight "athletic shorts", an American football jersey, an old pair of sneakers and a pair of service station sunglasses.

a couple of cyclists, with proper road bikes (i ride a hybrid) and lycra and a lot more speed and experience than me came up behind me. instead of going around me, they started following me (I promise you I wasn't going fast enough for anyone to be slipstreaming off me)

they didn't go around me, so i was expecting that they were going to say hello. (perhaps I was being naive because of the insane amount of fun that i was having)

but they didn't say hello. they started ragging on me for being slow ("hurry up porky" is so mature) and then continued to rag on me as they over took me ("how the f did YOU get a bike to hold you?!"). for someone who had owned his bike for 3 days, it was about the most horrible experience that I could've imagined at that particular point in time. i'd had my bike 3 days, it took me another 3 days to want to go and ride on the road again. and it hasn't been as fun as it was in the first 3 days.

it's upsetting to even recount it. it upset me because they maliciously took my fun for no reason. it upset me because i spent a lot of money that i didn't really have for that fun. and it particularly upset me because i spent all that money hoping that this was a community that i might be able to get involved in, and my first experience with that community was awful.

but i hoped that these guys were the arrogant ones who are probably the 'bad eggs' that i refer to on the road. i had hoped that not all 'cyclists' were like that - which is why i joined this forum. i wanted to meet the friendly cycling community.

but from the responses I've received so far for daring to offer an opinion and ask a question, most of you are the same hypocritical, arrogant douchebags that wrecked my first week in my new hobby.

you aren't better than me just because you can ride fast. your world might revolve around your bike, but mine doesn't. to me it's just fun. or at least it was for the first 3 days.

"cycling" really is a culture isn't it?

but it's not a culture i want to be a part of if it means having to be a prick to new riders and become so closed minded that I forget how some cyclists behave. i never want to become one of you who thinks that cyclists can't ever do anything wrong, and who thinks that all vitriol directed at riders in unwarranted. like drivers, cyclists sometimes do stupid things. i don't ever want to become so arrogant that i forget that.

in my experience over the last 2 weeks, you people (cyclists, both on the road and on this forum) are a very unwelcoming people. you espouse the virtues of cycling as though it makes you better than drivers, you say that everyone should be doing it - but you don't want them doing it. they're cutting in on your niche. they're cutting in your culture. you don't want your sport becoming mainstream at all because then it would be less obvious that you're a "cyclist" when you're wearing your matching lycra at the coffee shop.

anyway, that's the end of my rant/sook. thanks for confirming that too many cyclists are exactly like those pricks, and if riding a bike is to be fun, it will be in spite of you.

i'll check in again in a couple of days though - just cos i'm hoping that if anyone is aware of an online community of friendly, non-patronising, welcoming bike riders (as opposed to 'cyclists'), please let me know.

fwiw, thanks to you for sharing kb. you're the first rider i've ever known to get a fine!

supera wrote:is it not hypocritical that all of us (including me) get really upset at the actions of some drivers when we're completely unaccountable for our actions?

completely unaccountable? really?

so i can do anything i want and just get away with it? same goes for pedestrians too i would imagine?

gotta hand it to you, for someone not trying to start any arguments, you're doing pretty well at it.

keep it up!

It was a fair point responded to like so many on here. A word Supera. I've recently found out that several BNV recruited trolls reside here, so when some plonk hits you like he just did, don't pay it too much attention. Half the time folk on here will argue both sides of a debate till they're blue in the face btw.And Roller, way to go. Brilliant form.

And Supera, as Pete said, it's our road culture that needs to change, not our rego system. Again, those countries where both riders and drivers give and gain respect simply don't red to go to such lengths.It's also difficult to police and manage rego for cyclists when no licensing is required and theres no way of proving the you should pay rego or not. New bikes can be registered to an owner at the LBS, but 2nd hand or OS purchases? Nightmare.As seen in the pics, rego plates are hardly gonna be sizeable enough to be readily recognisable either.There would be definite pluses for an effective registration system, but ATM they're outweighed by the negitives preventing its implementation.